Any questions, comments, suggestions regarding the mod development.
User avatar
User

Rhifox

Posts

20

Joined

14 Apr 2012, 06:38

Location

Grass Valley, California

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Rhifox » 30 May 2012, 19:05

Thank you, Sushi, for your response. :) However, I will agree with the above posters in that hitting the ships isn't the problem. It is expected in a flight sim that enemy players will be very hard to hit. This was the case with SWG and with many others as well. In fact, it was actually one of the things I really liked about the mod--ships are very hard to hit, as they were in SWG, but it is due to proper hitboxes, rather than artificial difficulty (SWG offset the hitbox from the model, therefore shooting the actual model didn't do anything while the ship was in flight). I also never played the original unmodded Freelancer (I got it specifically for this mod), so I wouldn't have any experience with fighting larger-sized ships.

While increasing the size of the ships would help, I feel it is a backwards method of doing so, as it doesn't address the real problem which is the defenses (although I will agree that it does help combat lag). Essentially, what people don't like is having to basically hold the mouse over the enemy ship, press down on the trigger, and watch the enemy shrug off blast after blast. That is the problem, and what feels unStar Warsy for us. We want every single shot to be a threat, where every searing-hot bolt of plasma that flies by your ship is something that has every possibility of destroying you. As it is now, individual shots are not a threat, and one feels no fear even when performing risky maneuvers because they know they can shrug off several hits. For example, interceptors regularly jousting larger, more powerful bombers because they know even with the greater firepower a bomber has, it still won't destroy them. In a lower defense model, jousting a bomber would ideally be suicide.

Speaking again from my SWG experience: In SWG, ships were as hard to hit as they are here. Possibly harder, due to the offset hitbox issue, as it required you to know what point in empty space to shoot at because shooting at the actual ship model did nothing (also, guns didn't really converge as they do here, nor did they turret). Fights in SWG had the potential for lasting as long as they do here... up to 30-60 minutes between two good interceptor pilots. The thing was, they survived that long not because of shrugging off hits, but because they were deliberately flying evasively. Any single lucky shot that actually connected would do immense damage. Thus, each individual shot was a huge threat... it was simply up to the pilot to use his skills and ship type (interceptors being the hardest to hit) to avoid those hits and, thus, survive.

While I'm certainly willing to test a size increase if the devs feel this would be the better solution, I feel that focusing on reducing defenses would better accomplish the goal.

*Edit* It should be noted that I'm not against the increase to size. It would help, yes. I just feel that even with a size increase, the high defenses are the primary issue needing to be addressed.
Last edited by Rhifox on 30 May 2012, 19:28, edited 2 times in total.
-Captain Diana Canmore: RSS.Inexorable (New Republic)
-Lieutenant Commander Rhiana Fox: Fox (Galactic Empire)
-Second Lieutenant Coryna Moreau: Claymore-4 (New Republic)
-First Lieutenant Larei Ne'tal: Saber-3 (New Republic)
no avatar
User

Leaph Chausew

Posts

55

Joined

12 Apr 2012, 10:53

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Leaph Chausew » 30 May 2012, 19:11

^ Agreed.
no avatar
User

Colt556

Posts

46

Joined

14 Feb 2012, 10:00

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Colt556 » 30 May 2012, 20:11

As usual, Fox sums it all up in ways none of us are able to.
User avatar
User

Turis

Posts

260

Joined

16 Feb 2010, 12:55

Location

Santiago de compostela, Spain.

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Turis » 30 May 2012, 20:58

I say we leave it to the devs to make the changes, see how it works and post our opinions.
no avatar
User

Colt556

Posts

46

Joined

14 Feb 2012, 10:00

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Colt556 » 30 May 2012, 21:10

Turis, I think you're forgetting how game development works. I notice most (if not all) of your posts run along the lines of "let the devs handle it". In game development, developers spend more time actually creating a game than they do playing it. They simply don't have that much free time to do both. We, the players, can spend far more time playing their game and testing out every aspect of it. That means we actually have a better understanding of how things work in game since we are the ones using it all day every day. This is why betas and feedback are so crucial and welcomed by game developers, they're not gods and they can't do it all. It's our duty as players to inform the developers of what we feel is off, and help them find ways to fix it so that they can make a game everyone loves and can enjoy playing.

If we take Sushi's post as an example. Your posts after that have all been pretty much "well there you have it, let's wait and see". If we did what you wanted, we'd not only be wasting our time, but the dev's time as well. If you note the posts following that, our problem isn't landing hits, the size of the crafts aren't the problem. If we had held our tongues, waited for a patch to come out with bigger ships, we'd still turn around and go "this aint right" and now the devs have to go back and release ANOTHER patch with ANOTHER change. Instead, we can save them that unnecessary work by specifying that this isn't an issue we're encountering, and that it's actually something else. Thus they can get to work on the problem we have and maybe fix it on the first go.
no avatar
User

Zhukar

Posts

82

Joined

14 Apr 2011, 23:32

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Zhukar » 30 May 2012, 22:02

Actually, Turis does have several points. First of all this is not a beta, this is a demo. Don't expect sweeping mechanics changes at this stage unless the devs decide something is really wrong. Secondly, you are all talking in circles, the devs have stated their plan to address the issues mentioned; no need to keep badgering on about it till they have had a chance to examine it and see themselves.
User avatar
User

Sizer

Rank

Developer

Posts

954

Joined

08 Sep 2010, 23:56

Location

Oakland, California, USA

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Sizer » 30 May 2012, 22:02

Actually, in game design, devs play their games MORE than others. The problem that arises is that they tend to be too good, and base difficulty off of what they see as normal. And herein lies the problem. There is consistently a 'we know better' from both sides of the fence, and that causes problems.

Now, as a dev, this is how I would prefer that these conversations went:

Player: Suggestion!
Dev: Consideration and Response
Player: Thanks, we'll see how it goes
PATCH
Player: Feedback!

rinse, repeat.

This is how these conversations have been going.

Player: Suggestion/Demand!
Dev: Consideration, Annoyed Response
Player: You're Wrong!
Dev: We know what we're doing.
Player: You're Wrong!

rinse, repeat till patch can come out, repeat again.

You'll notice that no dev said anything in this thread till a few pages in. Honest answer as to why? We fail to see what it usually accomplishes. Yes, we do have our own ideas, and no, they are not equal to yours. Sorry, but that is the way it is. We have a concept of a combat model, we want to play it out as far as it will go, and if it is not sufficient, we will tweak it further. So what I suggest is that we all wait for the next patch, see how that plays out, and come back to this.
User avatar
User

Rhifox

Posts

20

Joined

14 Apr 2012, 06:38

Location

Grass Valley, California

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Rhifox » 30 May 2012, 22:05

Sizer wrote:So what I suggest is that we all wait for the next patch, see how that plays out, and come back to this.


Alright, I'll bow out of this thread until we've had a chance to try the changes in the next patch. :)

And I'm sorry if my posts came across as overly argumentative... it was not my intent. I just wanted to provide feedback and suggestions, nothing more. I'm very grateful for the work you do and look forward to seeing whatever changes you decide to implement.
-Captain Diana Canmore: RSS.Inexorable (New Republic)
-Lieutenant Commander Rhiana Fox: Fox (Galactic Empire)
-Second Lieutenant Coryna Moreau: Claymore-4 (New Republic)
-First Lieutenant Larei Ne'tal: Saber-3 (New Republic)
User avatar
User

Turis

Posts

260

Joined

16 Feb 2010, 12:55

Location

Santiago de compostela, Spain.

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Turis » 30 May 2012, 22:20

Sizer wrote:Now, as a dev, this is how I would prefer that these conversations went:

Player: Suggestion!
Dev: Consideration and Response
Player: Thanks, we'll see how it goes
PATCH
Player: Feedback!

rinse, repeat.


And that's exactly what I'm suggesting, Colt. You need to calm down a bit. We're not Generals getting their troops ready for war. You are very pretentious, demanding and arrogant. Step down from that podium. :P
no avatar
User

Colt556

Posts

46

Joined

14 Feb 2012, 10:00

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Colt556 » 30 May 2012, 22:33

I'm hesitant to point this out since I know how people will view it, but I'm compelled to anyways. I disagree with your assessment on how these discussions go down, Sizer. I look at pretty much every suggestion topic and the way I see them go down is slightly different than how you put them.

Player: Suggestion/Desired change
Dev: Annoyed Response
Player: You're ignoring me
Dev: We know what we're doing.
Player: Just consider it

That's how I see these topics go down. And pretty much every one of them is the same deal. We may view them differently since you're viewing it from a developer standpoint. But someone makes a topic about a suggested change (I almost never see anyone 'demand' something), and the devs DON'T consider it, or at least make no open indication they considered it. This topic is one of the few where a dev came in and flat out said "we agree and are trying to work something out", and this is also one of the few topics that was full of healthy debate on possible ways to fix the issue.

In most topics a dev will just give an annoyed response, no indication that they're actually listening to the player. This may be perfectly justified because they already know what needs to be done and are already working on it, but the response leaves the player feeling indignant because they're seemingly being ignored and brushed off. And valid or not, they feel it's valid and want the development team to pay a little more attention.

I think it's a problem in communication more than anything. Players want to feel as if they're contributing, they want to feel as if their ideas are being heard. When the developers seemingly ignore you or brush you off in an annoyed manner, obviously the player is going to feel upset. I've noticed this pattern in most topics. When a dev flat out says either "we understand and are working to remedy the issue" or "this is feature locked at the moment and wont be changed", more often than not it ends there. Or in some cases, such as this thread, it leads to peaceful debate about potential fixes between members.

I'd like to see more topics be like this one, the players discuss what they feel is wrong and possible ways to fix it, and the devs come in and, at the very least, say they hear our voices and are trying to work it out. If topics were like that, there'd be a lot less problems.

Although one thing I don't like this topic is that, especially now towards the end, and with Turis especially, it seems like people are trying to paint it in a bad light. Like we're demanding things or need to "calm down". This ENTIRE topic has been exceptionally civil with all sides just voicing ideas. In fact the only one to break that flow has been Turis with his constant "let's just stop and let the devs handle it". I don't know the dev's stance, but I for one like threads like this where they're very civil discussions, with everyone throwing in what they think and talking it over. So when someone tries to say that's wrong, it bothers me. This thread is a shining example of how the feedback process is SUPPOSE to work, and nobody should try to say otherwise.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign
[ Time : 0.076s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]
cron